Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/09/19 in all areas

  1. 10 points
  2. 8 points
    Normally I hate on micros a lot since TBH, they suck. But since I've got loads of friends in these I hope your bloc goes well. But you guys know the rules, I've gotta hate on micros one way or another. ;,p Disband your trash micros and join a real alliance you plebs
  3. 4 points
    This report is not only a waste of moderation’s time, it further proves that instead of tackling an issue head on - you want to use moderation to try and divert political arguments or points. In multiple threads you have insulted our coalition and members of our coalition. Which is fine, because this is Politics and War - Politics can be messy. However, when someone then calls you out about the war (in a thread about the war), you run for the mods? Weak sauce, sir. It’s a waste of the mods’ time and sets a dangerous precedent for others to follow.
  4. 3 points
    As you guys all know, Politics and War fulfils the "war" part of it's name, but not the "politics" part. I was thinking that maybe we should include policies that affect the growth of your nation, as it does irl. Also I think we should have approval rating affect the tax income, since nobody likes to pay taxes to a terrible government.
  5. 3 points
    I mean this entire statement is wrong, BK's "burden of proof" for nova was way may compelling, the nova incident, im not sure why you think the burden of proof regarding AK is even remotely substantial, all the "proof" people have from AK is one government member cheated and may or may not have gotten that information from elsewhere. Nova being rolled "portionally" is really another argument altogether, the real argument I was trying to get across here was that, there is not enough proof to implicate AK or their government at this time. It partially my fault the argument strayed slightly but anyways overall there is not enough burden of proof to implicate AK, furthermore mass damage to the economic status of the game did not occur in this incident, With information I dont really see how anyone can expect anything to happen to them, I am not about to throw a ally under the bus for a action of one person. Like i said before if you have any other proof then dm me, we will be happy to reevaluate if such a time comes.
  6. 3 points
    I don't think downvotes should be removed. It's not censorship. No one is stopping anyone from posting. It's a method of signaling disagreement and that shouldn't be removed from a game like this. There are situations it gets abused in but that doesn't mean the entire feature should be nixed.
  7. 3 points
    On one hand - well played 👍 On the other - if you’re implying that Inst has the same amount of influence on your bloc that Thrax does on ours...that explains a lot about your bloc.
  8. 3 points
    I don’t agree that downvotes are politicized. For instance, the people who have the most downvotes (from both sides of the coalitions) typically post the things that either make the least amount of sense to others/are seeking attention/are generally disrespected due to their own actions. Roquentin is the leader of the opposite coalition of me, but I would be willing to bet that I have upvoted more things than I have downvoted of his. I would bet that it is the case for a good portion of folks from both sides of the aisle.
  9. 2 points
  10. 2 points
    If I am reading this correctly you are asking for a system that makes for a nation to be drawn into a war unless they are fighting a defensive battle? Why would such a system be needed? Isn't it just common sense not to attack a person that you don't want to fight? Could you clarify what you are talking about?
  11. 2 points
    Dear Sheepy, what other things have you done that is causing me to get this several times when using the back button on my mouse when I never got it before your changes?
  12. 2 points
    Join the Mines after you make those micros merge into your micro lel Absolutely it will happen but keep it down we cant let them know that 4 out of 6 of the alliances that make up this bloc are Weeb based
  13. 2 points
    Guess my predictions are pretty accurate Now introducing, Assassin Fortune Teller Inc. For a small fee of 420K, come and know your fortune for the day First 100 customers to pay only 69% of the standard fee. Disclaimer: No refunds if predictions don't match
  14. 2 points
    Your deflection skills have dropped since your vacation
  15. 2 points
    Imagine having your head so far up your ass that you think others agreeing with someone who called you out for being in a coalition with KKKT is an upvote conspiracy.
  16. 2 points
    She tried to squeeze a surrender out of UA and ended up surrendering TWICE, losing her alliance and any small ounce of respect she may have had. All within 48 hours. Now that's impressive.
  17. 2 points
  18. 2 points
    The Astra Complaint Form is now active and ready to be used. https://forms.gle/cYSjUnB8ZyCf7GMr9
  19. 2 points
    I still disagree with that. People are just annoyed that the activity is roughly the same shit today. It'll pass, and this board will go back to being DoEs and other boring stuff.
  20. 2 points
  21. 1 point
    I assume this means as a "hero" you don't have any actual power in game?
  22. 1 point
    #1 it helps separates the high gov from low one reason you might want to do that is for example If you have a economics person who is in high gov and you also have low gov people they would all be officers And since you have the economic person as an officer you have to set your alliance withdrawal permission to officers that means everyone that's an officer can make withdrawals So having an high gov't and low would Would help not having everyone having access you only attend for a small group to have(high gov't) And will not have everyone clustered in on category (officer) Right!!!
  23. 1 point
    I can always appreciate a mutual defence/aggression treaty. Have fun!
  24. 1 point
    *Looks at price of nuke, looks at bounty, now back to the price of nuke now back to the bounty.* Not even worth the dec.
  25. 1 point
  26. 1 point
  27. 1 point
    I'd really still like an auto-tipping feature in the interest of fairness.
  28. 1 point
  29. 1 point
    Ssshh you just included yourself in the blitz..
  30. 1 point
    Three hours until NPO hits everyone in your bloc (including you guys.) Regardless of your peace treaty.
  31. 1 point
    Looks like they rolled a 1
  32. 1 point
    On Behalf on my Citizens, May I Welcome you to our Alliance, the Ecotopian International Co-operative Alliance!!!,Here we prides ourselves on the Freedom of Democracy, Equality, and of course, Unity,We are an Alliance who looks out for one Another, whether you may be alone or another Alliance wishing to Co-operative and Co-exist alongside our Organisation, then we may be the Alliance of your Hopes and Dreams,Please feel free to join at your own choice,Thank you for visiting, Please come again soon,HRH King ClarkeyBoy2707 of The Kingdom of the United Islands of Ecotopia
  33. 1 point
    I mean it would be pretty dumb if they started posting counter requests and strategy sessions in a public forum but yeah I agree with you.
  34. 1 point
    To reiterate the salient flaws in the fix: A daily cap is better than a rate limit, especially for away games. They create “liquidity” and make baseball function, analogously to markets. The 10% profits cutoff function should either only count for home games (to be fair to away gamers) or count away games as less than a whole game each (in case the former would allow for too much cash generated). If you insist on a rate limit, 5 seconds is a little long, especially for away games. Again, because they make less profits for the player and because they make the baseball “market” more “liquid,” they can’t be treated the same way home games are. The better captchas are a welcome addition to the game, thanks.
  35. 1 point
    5 seconds is too much. I would prefer a cap of 5k total games than a 5 second limit. I could cope with the changes Alex has done minus the 5 second limit tbh.
  36. 1 point
    So ya’ll removed @Rebekah Mikaelson from The Originals yet ya’ll still counter for her if she were to Get hit? Sounds like bs to me. Just keep her in Lmfao. Someone please hit her
  37. 1 point
  38. 1 point
    I already addressed those and again, not NPO but IQ pre-split, which I even mentioned again in the post you quoted. There is a difference, or should have been, between IQ and NPO but that doesn't matter to you guys.
  39. 1 point
    I'm aiding in evidence that your self interest trumps your actual care for the rules in regards to this situation and that this is a frivolous report at best against someone in the community. Discrediting your reason for reporting isn't really analysis, It just using what you've said here as further evidence on why this report shouldn't be taken seriously.
  40. 1 point
    They do realize NPO declared on us right? . . . . Right?
  41. 1 point
    Just a reminder that this is a non-discussion forum. The only acceptable posters here are: the person making the report, the accused, someone providing evidence or staff. Please see the rules for this particular subforum here:
  42. 0 points
  43. 0 points
    Everyone who isn't exploiting it thinks it's ridiculous. Flip the switch.
  44. -1 points
    Of course. I've definitely admitted my involvement in derailing the thread, but I made very clear that I would not continue to engage in the VM-related argument or arguments about moderation as a weapon on that thread. I felt that Kevanovia was trying to derail the thread into a separate conversation unrelated to the thread topic and I also made it quite clear that it would stop as I would not pick up the bait. To Kevanovia's credit, he has not continued the VM discussion (although others have tried to provoke) after I've stated that I would no longer participate on that thread discussing my VM. To his discredit, he has not shown his sincerity in mocking me for VM by opening a new thread on the topic. ==== I'd also point out that you are currently engaged in analysis, not the provision of evidence. If you would like to open up a new thread accusing me of using moderation as a weapon, please do so. You are also free to do so via the "report posts" button. In other threads I've stated that moderation SHOULD be used as a weapon and that all political sides should be aggressive in using rules violations, forum or games, to their political advantage. It keeps people honest because they know that any rules violations will be prosecuted and all rules will be enforced. Thank you for clarifying your meaning on this.
  45. -1 points
    If you would like to make these arguments, ask Kevanovia to do so as he has the rights to do so. Your previous post was not provision of evidence, nor is the current one. And as I've stated repeatedly, if Kevanovia wishes to mock me for VM, he can open a thread to do so.
  46. -1 points
    They weren't part of it. Next. What wasn't part of the deal was the near immediate attempt to restore TKR to power by CoS. It was anticipated as a possibility beforehand in discussions as the most likely collaboration as the blocs shared people who were close together. I'm not talking about N$O. Like I said I'm sure TKR is super fond of Sisyphus, Leopold, etc and don't mind HS. I'm talking NPO and the prediction was too much of a risk for me to take. I've been trying to explain to you the entire time there was a consensus on hitting KETOG at some point as an independent plan. They just didn't want to help BK and wanted BK to die and they didn't want to hurt their friends in Chaos. They've played both sides the entire time in terms of it being all my idea and reconciling with you and while also retaining support from other people by saying they don't like KETOG. It's one or the other. That's where I draw the line and there has been a painful lack of accountability. When Sisyphus had all his fun at my expense, I was livid and he never bothered to come down from it.
  47. -1 points
    Why don't you get a life instead of judging others? Besides I don't play that much >_>
  48. -1 points
  49. -1 points
    At least it isn't whiny trash, we saw you guys and figured "Leave it to the professionals".
  50. -1 points
    So looking at the score of troops compared to tanks, is it worth making any tanks at all? Obviously the higher your score the higher means other higher scores will be able to attack you so that's why its best to get the military for your score possible so you have an edge on them. Will I get a better score ratio and other benefits just making troops only because if you look at score per tank vs score per troop its highly different. Tank=0.05 score Solider=0.0005 score Each tank is worth 23 armed troops So say I have 2000 tanks that is 100 score and is equal to 46000 troops 46000 troops=23 score You can clearly see troops have a better ratio. However each city can only hold a max of 15k troops (7.5 score) per city and each city can hold a max of 1250 (62.5 score) tanks and each city is 50 score to make and then you have infrastructure score cost which is 0.025 per 1 infa. I think the benefits of having no tanks is obvious .Cost less to keep up with .Don't spend as much resources using in battle and don't need as much steel .Gives more score to be flexible allowing you to build more cities which gains you more wealth .Not affected by air control affect in war .Lets you have a higher max plane count due to having more cities Positives to having tanks .Allows you to build very strong land forces within just a day due to be able to make a lot of them for how much they are worth .They don't die as much therefore you wont have to keep replacing them as much as soldiers .Will have a bigger land force slightly Im struggling to find a reason to use tanks now I have done the math so I would like some more experienced members of the community to tell me is they a point to using tanks or if using them in small quantities is the best choice. If they is a flaw in my math please tell me and correct me
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.